Were God's words purified seven times?

[Ed Edwards]

Salamander: //The key is Ps 12:6,7//

Amen, Brother Salamander -- You can preach that all day long!

Psa 12:5-7 (KJV1611 Edition):
For the oppression of the poore,
for the sighing of the needy,
now will I arise (saith the Lord,)
I will set him in safetie from him that ||puffeth at him.
6 The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes:
as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.
7 Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,)
thou shalt preserue + them,
from this generation for euer.

Margin notes:
||Or, would ensnare him
+Heb. him, every one of them,

Two types of Translater footnotes are seen in this
passage:
1. The alternate translation (the same Hebrew word(s)
is(are) being translated -- uses the word 'Or'
2. The alternate source (two different Hebrew source readings
were available to the translators) -- uses the word
'Heb.'

This passage shows that the King James Version Translators
had available to them multiple Original Langauge sources.
Proof positive that God can bless more than one version
in the same language.

BTW, 'them' (or 'he') in verse 7 refers to the poor and needy
in verse 5 NOT the words of the Lord in verse 6.

In another place I have been and will continue to show
that most doctrinal differences come from variant understandings
of the KJVs NOT from MVs. In fact, I have yet to see any
doctrinal difference from an MV; lots of doctrinal differences
from the KJVs

 

[Ed Edwards]

Psalm 12:5-7 supports two variant dotrines
according to which understanding of 'them' you
have.

If 'them' is the 'people' in verse five; then
the doctrine: OSAS is supported.
If 'them' is the 'Words of God'; then the
doctrine: KJVO is supported.

See how it works?
Read the KJVs and how you figure
it means makes doctrinal differences.

All the big schisims of the 19th Century (1801-1900)
were based largely on the reading of the KJVs
and zero, zilch, nil on the reading of any MV.

Mormons
Adventist movement (Millerites)
Jehovah's Witnesses
Christian Scientists

(each of these grew into the Ten Million plus adherenets
during the 20th century /1901-2000/ ).

 

[franklinmonroe]

yes, the words of the Lord are "AS" silver tried in a furnace of earth, not that the words were tried. try re-reading the verse again.

Yes, Salamander, I probably would understand the verse this way: that the pure words of the LORD are as the silver (the finished product of the purification process). However, Onlyists assert that the important comparison is about the process (that pure words are only the result after the seventh purification). It's the "seven" that supposedly identifies the KJV as the specific "pure words".

 

[Keith M]

Hmmm, let's see...

1. the Wycliffe Bible
2. the Tyndale NT
3. the Myles Coverdale Bible
4. the Matthew's Bible (later editions called the Cranmer Bible)
5. Taverner's Bible
6. the Great Bible
7. the Geneva Bible
8. the Bishops' Bible
9. the Rheims-Douay Bible
10. the King James Version

Seems those who believe in the faulty seven times purified idea lost count somewhere. The Geneva Bible would be the 7th English Bible version unless we omit Tyndale's work because it was only the NT. In that case the Bishops' Bible would be the 7th English Bible version. So if God's word was purified 7 times before it became perfect, then it stands to reason there was absolutely no need for the KJV because it came after God's word was perfected. Since the KJV had some changes in it, it apparently was less perfect than the perfect translation which came before 1611.

Hmmm, seems the onlyists get more and more confused in their thinking as they grasp at straws to try to support the KJVO error...

 

[franklinmonroe]

1. the Wycliffe Bible
2. the Tyndale NT
3. the Myles Coverdale Bible
4. the Matthew's Bible (later editions called the Cranmer Bible)
5. Taverner's Bible
6. the Great Bible
7. the Geneva Bible
8. the Bishops' Bible
9. the Rheims-Douay Bible
10. the King James Version

Several of these Bibles had multiple editions (that should also count toward the purification). This is important, because as Keith stated, often the Tyndale is not counted (because it was just NT), as are a couple others not counted (Rheims-Douay, for example) for various reasons in order to manipulate the preceding Bibles list to the required six.

I am still baffled by the fact that the Onlyists include the Wycliffe Bible in this group, since it does not really have a direct textual relationship with the others (Wycliffe/Purvey versions being translated from the Latin).

In addition, I think there were a couple lesser-known English Bibles at this time not on this list. Perhaps they were not in the Tyndale textual tradition either.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:I answered your folly, my mistake.

With one goof: the folly was VANCE'S.

If, and since, the Lord is the Keeper of the purity of His Word, then why is it so many insist upon corrupt and misleading MSS as the same pure words?

Because you cannot prove which mss, if any, are corrupt, and GOD has allowed differing accounts of the same events to be incluses in Scripture. until conclusive proof can be found, all you're doing is guessing.


That should be your question instead of this "calling' you've imposed upon the Lord.

Actually, the question is: BY WHOSE AUTHORITY does one pick-n-choose among the valid Bible versions, insisting only ONE of them is valid? There's only one legitimate reason: PERSONAL PREFERENCE. All others are opinion, guesswork, and incorrect.

The key is Ps 12:6,7

Yes, about the people mentioned in the first 5 verses.

The "poor and needy" lame duck cannot be true unless you insist that the Lord didn't become poor that we might be made rich in Him!

Apples & oranges.

Remember, the Psalms are SONGS. Same as modern English-language songs, David skipped from subject to subject. He takes a 'break' from singing about the oppressed Godly people to praise GOD, as he often does in many other Psalms. And the AV man themselves recognized that V7 was about the PEOPLE in V1-5. This has been clearly PROVEN, with the indisputable proof coming from the AV 1611 itself. Do you wish to believe the early edition of the BV you have chosen ONLY when it agrees with the man-made doctrine about it that came about over 300 years later?

And, Sal, I see you have NOT dealt with this FACT: Even IF those Psalms were all about God's words, there's NOT ONE QUARK of evidence in those verses pointing to the KJV or any other specific version or language. Therefore applying them to the KJVO doctrine is pure conjecture.

Diametrically and especially doctrinally, the KJB is still God's pure Word.

So are lotsa others. You cannot prove otherwise.

I am simply AMAZED while checking various KJVO sites around the Net at how many of them seem to embrace this TOTALLY-FALSE premise about those two verses. But I know WHY. The idea had been tucked away in some library shelves, but after Wilkinson included it in his book, almost all subsequent authors, most of whom copied from Wilkinson at least in part, especially that "Psalm 12:7 thingie".

It's not as if we're GUESSING this "thingie" is wrong...we've **PROVEN** it wrong, with the KJV itself providing the most compelling evidence. Knowing you're a smart person, Sal, I'm quite surprised that you seem to embrace this codwallop same as many intellectually-challenged zealots...especially in the face of CONCLUSIVE PROOF that it's incorrect.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
"Psalm 12:7 thingie".

It's not as if we're GUESSING this "thingie" is wrong...we've **PROVEN** it wrong, with the KJV itself providing the most compelling evidence. Knowing you're a smart person, Sal, I'm quite surprised that you seem to embrace this codwallop same as many intellectually-challenged zealots...especially in the face of CONCLUSIVE PROOF that it's incorrect.

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Pr4each it! :thumbs:

May I add that the 'conclusive proof' is from 'the KJV1611 Edition'?

 

[Logos1560]

Seems those who believe in the faulty seven times purified idea lost count somewhere.

Yes, their count is faulty.

1. Wycliffe's Bible
2. Tyndale's N. T. and partial O. T.
3. 1535 Coverdale's Bible
4. 1537 Matthew's Bible
5. 1538 Coverdale's N. T. from Latin
6. 1539 Great Bible [also sometimes called Whitchurch's Bible or Cranmer's Bible]
7. 1539 Taverner's Bible
8. 1551 Bishop Becke's Bible
1552 Richard Jugges' N. T.
9. 1557 Whittingham's N. T. [sometimes called Geneva N. T. but actually different from it]
10. 1560 Geneva Bible
11. 1568 Bishops' Bible
12. 1611 KJV

D. A. Waite listed the KJV as being number 17 on his chronological list of complete English Bibles (Defending the KJB, p. 203). David Cloud listed the KJV as number 9 on his list of the “unmatched heritage” of the KJV (Faith, p. 433). David Daniell wrote: “There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale’s first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential” (Bible in English, p. 126). David Norris noted: “between 1526 and 1611, nine English translations of Scripture of significance were made” (Big Picture, p. 333).

 

[Keith M]

The key is Ps 12:6,7

No, onlyists simply misinterpret this passage and then apply the misinterpretation to try to support the KJVO error. The problem is that this "key" has been proven wrong, and that it does not support the error of onlyism in any way, shape or form.

Diametrically and especially doctrinally, the KJB is still God's pure Word.

True, the KJV is the word of God, but God's word is also found in just as pure a state in the legitimate MVs available today. The preservation of God's word did not come to a halt in 1611 - it still goes on today.

Thank You, God. You have the power to preserve Your word for the people of all ages and You have chosen to do this. Thank You for the KJV, the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV and other translations in which You have chosen to preserve Your word. May Your word be preserved and may those who deny Your word come to accept the truth that You have preserved Your word in various English Bible translations.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
Thank You, God. You have the power to preserve Your word for the people of all ages and You have chosen to do this. Thank You for the KJV, the NASB, the NKJV, the NIV and other translations in which You have chosen to preserve Your word. May Your word be preserved and may those who deny Your word come to accept the truth that You have preserved Your word in various English Bible translations.

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Pray it! :thumbs:

 

[robycop3]

Sumpin else I thunk ov whial ago...If God's words hadta be purified seven times, WHO wuz kwalified ta DO it?

 

[Keith M]

If God's word wasn't pure when it came from Him, then the things we believe are all wrong. No human would ever be qualified to purify God's word. Not even a series of people would be qualified to purify God's word over the course of many years.

 

[Salamander]

Ut O! Somebody goofed, they forgot that Jesus is the Word of God and is of the masculine gender, thus "he". And that the words of God are "them" as in"all of them".

The Words of the LORD are pure, and the LORD has kept them pure as well.

Those who feel that His word had to be purified 7 times are misled, but verse 7 is the antecedent of verse 6 in my Bible.

OSAS doctrine is supported by every verse in the Bible as well.

When MSS contradict the received text by comparison to the letters held by the New Testament churches and those O.T. scriptures preserved by the Masortic Hebrews the problems begin, thus corruption lies at the door.

I saw the arguement against men keeping God's Word, if it hasn't been kept by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost/ inspiration, then none of us have the Inspired word of God except by our own opinion or device.

God uses man inspite of man, but that doesn't change the FACT that God has used men to preserve His Word.:godisgood:

 

[Keith M]

Ut O! Somebody goofed, they forgot that Jesus is the Word of God and is of the masculine gender, thus "he". And that the words of God are "them" as in"all of them".

Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures are two different things, Salamander! You're obviously confused here.

The Words of the LORD are pure, and the LORD has kept them pure as well.

Yes, the pure word of God is gound in various legitimate English Bible translations.

Those who feel that His word had to be purified 7 times are misled

True!

but verse 7 is the antecedent of verse 6 in my Bible.

Then please tell us what Bible you're using, Salamander. In the KJV as in the MVs vs 7 refers to the subject of the Psalm, not to vs. 6. People are promised to be preserved in this passage.

OSAS doctrine is supported by every verse in the Bible as well.

In the KJV as well as in the MVs.

When MSS contradict the received text by comparison to the letters held by the New Testament churches and those O.T. scriptures preserved by the Masortic Hebrews the problems begin, thus corruption lies at the door.

Then have you seen these letters, Salamander? And how do they differ from NT manuscripts?

I saw the arguement against men keeping God's Word, if it hasn't been kept by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost/ inspiration, then none of us have the Inspired word of God except by our own opinion or device.

You're confused between keeping (obeying, observing) God's word and translating it perfectly.

God uses man inspite of man, but that doesn't change the FACT that God has used men to preserve His Word.

True, God has used men to preserve His word, and the FACT is that it is found in various legitimate English Bible translations. The problem is your confusion again - preservation and perfect translation are two different things. And the KJV, like all translations, has errors.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:Ut O! Somebody goofed, they forgot that Jesus is the Word of God and is of the masculine gender, thus "he". And that the words of God are "them" as in"all of them".

Never mind that David was writing about something else entirely. God had promised to David that He'd preserve the downtrodden Godly people, and David took a little break in His Psalm to praise the Lord in V6. Then he returned to the subject of PEOPLE in V7.

The Words of the LORD are pure, and the LORD has kept them pure as well.

In every valid Bible version.

Those who feel that His word had to be purified 7 times are misled, but verse 7 is the antecedent of verse 6 in my Bible.

An incorrect guess in the 2nd half of your sentence. Read the entire Psalm 12 without V6 in the KJV or in any other version to see how smoothly it reads. Remembering the Psalms are songs, anyone can see that David interrupted his musical soliloquy to PRAISE GOD, as he often did in other Psalms. V1 thru 5 in the antecedent of V7.

OSAS doctrine is supported by every verse in the Bible as well.

No, it isn't. Every valid version has Hebrews 6:4-6 in it.

When MSS contradict the received text by comparison to the letters held by the New Testament churches and those O.T. scriptures preserved by the Masortic Hebrews the problems begin, thus corruption lies at the door.

No, the prob begins with men picking-n-choosing.

I saw the arguement against men keeping God's Word, if it hasn't been kept by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost/ inspiration, then none of us have the Inspired word of God except by our own opinion or device.

Sir, you're off on a tabgent again. NNE is arguing against the preservation of God'e word!

God uses man inspite of man, but that doesn't change the FACT that God has used men to preserve His Word.:godisgood:


Again, NNE is arguing against the preservation of god's word. What I AM arguing against is the goofy notion that Psalm 12:7 is in reference to God's word when the AV 1611 itself plainly shows this idea WRONG, the even-goofier idea that God's word was purified 7 times, and against the incorrect KJVO doctrine in general.

For the umpteenth time...if Psalm 12:7 WERE about the preservation of God's word, where is the SLIGHTEST HINT that it's referring to only the KJV. Sal, you have NOT dealt with that little question. Your failure to do so makes everything else you've said on the subject to be of no value.

WHERE DO PSALMS 12:6-7 REFER TO THE KJV ALONE?????????????????

 

[Keith M]

If Psalm 12:6-7 speaks of the KJV, then God broke His promise because the KJV didn't come along until 1611 - a few hundred years after the passage was written. And the fact that 12:7 refers to the people and nothing else should be quite obvious from the context. No amount of twisting and misinterpreting can make 12:7 truly refer to anything but people.

 

[Keith M]

From Matthew Henry, that great KJV commentator:

That God will secure his chosen remnant to himself, how bad soever the times are (Psalms 12:7): Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High, Daniel 7:25. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. He will keep them from this generation, (1.) From being debauched by them and drawn away from God, from mingling with them and learning their works. In times of general apostasy the Lord knows those that are his, and they shall be enabled to keep their integrity. (2.) From being destroyed and rooted out by them. The church is built upon a rock, and so well fortified that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. In the worst of times God has his remnant, and in every age will reserve to himself a holy seed and preserve that to his heavenly kingdom.
- The Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

Even in the days of Matthew Henry folks realized that Psalm 12:7 was not talking about words, but about people. The idea that Psalm 12:7 refers to words at best is based in deep error, or at worst was deliberately contrived to support the erroneous KJVO stance. Either way, the idea that Psalm 12:7 refers to words is wrong.

 

[franklinmonroe]

The antecedent of “them” in verse 7 is almost certainly not the “words” of verse 6 based upon gender agreement. The Hebrew word for “them” (twice in v. 7) is masculine, while the term for “words” is feminine.

 

[Salamander]

Then explain how the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to refer to Jesus as a "sheep before HER sheerers was dumb"


Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Toying with the Word of God by altering the flow of Scripture by jumping the contextual topic around allows for many mistakes in interpretation.

Something's amiss in your hermanuetics, like, not interpreting the Bible just as it is.

Though it is oftentimes that David in his penning down the Psalms would make a statement then "stop and shout awhile", he never jumps from one subject to another then right back to the previous subject without clarity in the following passages to allow the partaker to fully undertsand from which point he is referring.

God is not the author of confusion

I am kept by the pure KEPT words of God. I have been made rich in His Goodness and Grace and an heir to the commonwealth of Israel. I have the KEPT PURE words of God to prove it; nothing imposed upon the word that isn't already there.

You want to apply verse 7 to verse 5 be my guest, but any 5th grade reader will understand that God has KEPT His Word PURE by reading the 12th Psalm.:godisgood:

 

[Keith M]

God is not the author of confusion

God is not the author of confusion. Yet you remain confused about just what (who) it is in Psalm 12 that God promised to preserve. If God is not the author of confusion, Salamander, (and He isn't) then what is the source of your confusion? And how is it that you continue to apply this verse to the KJV? It has been shown repeatedly that if this verse applies to the KJV then God broke His promise from the time this Psalm was written until 1611. So how do you remain so confused, Salamander?